Minutes from November 3, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting

LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
November 3, 1986
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergarrd, USFS
Dave Baumgartner, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc.
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Wendell Anderson - Visitor
Willis Tingey - Visitor
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer lead the discussion on the minutes of the last
team meeting. The only item brought up related to the Safety
Tech memo. Jack Spence suggested that it would be better to
state that some locations along the highway had higher than
average accident rates rather than higher than expected ac­cident
rates, since there was really no way of determining
expected accident rates. Jack also had a suggestion on
Table 10. If the level of confidence was going to be in­cluded
as part of the table, there should be some explanation
of what it meant. Steve Flint asked that the number of fata­lities
be included on Table 8, along with the number of fatal
accidents.
There was no other discussion on the minutes of the previous
meeting.
Item 2 - Discussion of Alternate Routes (to Logan Canyon)
John Neil reported on his study of alternate routes from
Logan to Bear Lake. He had invited Mr. Wendell Anderson and
Mr. Willis Tingey to report on a study that they had made on
the possibility of a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon.
The study was conducted at the request of former Governor
Clyde. It was pointed out that a route from Logan to Sage
Junction through Blacksmith Fork Canyon was 8 to 10 miles
shorter and the maximum elevation was 500 feet lower than
the existing route through Logan Canyon. Both Mr. Anderson
and Mr. Tingey felt that Logan Canyon would not be able to
handle all of the traffic that it would be asked to handle
and that an alternate route should be considered.
1
John Neil reported that UDOT planners had told him that the
simplest way to develop an alternate route would be to de­velop
some additional recreational areas that needed the
access. The construction cost of an alternate route was
estimated at $1.5 to $2.0 million per mile.
Lynn Zollinger agreed that Logan Canyon will not be able to
carryall of the traffic that will ultimately travel between
Bear Lake and the Wasatch Front. However it has not been
determined how much more, if any, traffic Logan Canyon can
handle before the impacts become unacceptable. Lynn sug­gested
that there not be any more consideration of alternate
routes, at least until it has been determined that there
will be need for more capacity than Logan Canyon can carry.
Jack Spence agreed with Lynn, there did not seem to be the
need for additional capacity at the present and that study
of alternate routes was not warranted. If it was determined
that there was major action of the same scale required in
Logan Canyon then the examination of alternate routes would
be warranted.
Other discussion about the Blacksmith Fork alternate involved
possible environmental problems with the River, Hardware
Ranch and the lack of room in Left Hand Fork. It was decided
that this discussion would be summarized for the record in a
memo and action to be taken at the next meeting.
Item 3 - Discussion of Goals and Objectives Tech Memo
Stan Nuffer lead the discussion of the overall goals and
objectives that had been presented in a draft technical mem­orandum
at the last ID team meeting. The first topic· was
the minimum speed that the "baseline" alternative would be
designed for. There was some question about a 35 mph mini-
, mum in the lower part of the canyon. Fred LaBar said that a
40 mph minimum speed had been considered before in that sec­tion
and had been found to be acceptable. Jim Naegle asked
if the modified standard section had been used in the previ­ous
study. Some thought that it had but none were certain.
Duncan Silver suggested that copies of the 1979 proposal and
analysis be distributed to members of the ID team so that
the team had an opportunity to review the past work and de­cide
whether the past study was still valid. This approach
would be better than just rubber stamping a study that most
on the team were not familiar with.
It was also suggested that the AASHTO recommended minimums
be included in the table on page 3 of the memo. Rudy Lukes
asked where there would be minimum speeds greater than 40 mgh.
Stan Nuffer said that in some areas the posted speed is cur­rently
55 mph and that he thought we could maintain that
speed in those areas.
2
There was also some discussion on what "minimum" meant.
Some expressed concern that the minimum set now would be
absolute regardless of other consequences. Stan explained
that in order to establish roadway features (curves, etc.)
minimum speeds needed to be set. If the impacts of design­ing
a roadway for one "minimum" are unacceptable then a new
"minimum" speed would be required. Minimum speeds are not
meant to be fixed at the beginning of the study and then not
redefined if needed.
The technical memo illustrated standard sections and modified
standard sections for 40 mph. It was suggested that sections
for 35 and 55 mph also be included.
Steve Flint expressed concern that delineators would make
parking areas unuseable. Duncan Silver said that the need
for parking should be evaluated and planned for where
needed.
Rudy Lukes wondered if the dugway was really a good place to
consider a climbing lane. Duncan Silver said that there
should be an inventory of the needs for climbing lanes
before looking at possible locations. To conduct the
inventory the team should:
1. Establish criteria for the selection of possible
locations.
2. Identify those sections which may meet the
criteria.
3. Identify the possible environmental constraints at
those sites.
Slow vehicle turnouts were also discussed. Lynn Zollinger
indicated that the turnouts need to be placed where those
using the turnouts will have a good view of the roadway
in order to safely get out of and back into the traffic.
The final item on the goals and objectives memo was a sug­gestion
to add a section on the need for recreational parking.
Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service could help identify
where recreational parking was needed.
Item 4 - Alternate Alignments from the Summit to Garden City
Stan Nuffer said that the Archeologist was preparing an
alternate alignments survey.
3
Item 5 - Preview of Garden City Public Meeting Presentation
Cliff Forsgren previewed the slide presentation which was to
be used to introduce the project to those who attended the
meeting in Garden City.
SLC-STN/03
4

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
November 3, 1986
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergarrd, USFS
Dave Baumgartner, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc.
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Wendell Anderson - Visitor
Willis Tingey - Visitor
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer lead the discussion on the minutes of the last
team meeting. The only item brought up related to the Safety
Tech memo. Jack Spence suggested that it would be better to
state that some locations along the highway had higher than
average accident rates rather than higher than expected ac­cident
rates, since there was really no way of determining
expected accident rates. Jack also had a suggestion on
Table 10. If the level of confidence was going to be in­cluded
as part of the table, there should be some explanation
of what it meant. Steve Flint asked that the number of fata­lities
be included on Table 8, along with the number of fatal
accidents.
There was no other discussion on the minutes of the previous
meeting.
Item 2 - Discussion of Alternate Routes (to Logan Canyon)
John Neil reported on his study of alternate routes from
Logan to Bear Lake. He had invited Mr. Wendell Anderson and
Mr. Willis Tingey to report on a study that they had made on
the possibility of a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon.
The study was conducted at the request of former Governor
Clyde. It was pointed out that a route from Logan to Sage
Junction through Blacksmith Fork Canyon was 8 to 10 miles
shorter and the maximum elevation was 500 feet lower than
the existing route through Logan Canyon. Both Mr. Anderson
and Mr. Tingey felt that Logan Canyon would not be able to
handle all of the traffic that it would be asked to handle
and that an alternate route should be considered.
1
John Neil reported that UDOT planners had told him that the
simplest way to develop an alternate route would be to de­velop
some additional recreational areas that needed the
access. The construction cost of an alternate route was
estimated at $1.5 to $2.0 million per mile.
Lynn Zollinger agreed that Logan Canyon will not be able to
carryall of the traffic that will ultimately travel between
Bear Lake and the Wasatch Front. However it has not been
determined how much more, if any, traffic Logan Canyon can
handle before the impacts become unacceptable. Lynn sug­gested
that there not be any more consideration of alternate
routes, at least until it has been determined that there
will be need for more capacity than Logan Canyon can carry.
Jack Spence agreed with Lynn, there did not seem to be the
need for additional capacity at the present and that study
of alternate routes was not warranted. If it was determined
that there was major action of the same scale required in
Logan Canyon then the examination of alternate routes would
be warranted.
Other discussion about the Blacksmith Fork alternate involved
possible environmental problems with the River, Hardware
Ranch and the lack of room in Left Hand Fork. It was decided
that this discussion would be summarized for the record in a
memo and action to be taken at the next meeting.
Item 3 - Discussion of Goals and Objectives Tech Memo
Stan Nuffer lead the discussion of the overall goals and
objectives that had been presented in a draft technical mem­orandum
at the last ID team meeting. The first topic· was
the minimum speed that the "baseline" alternative would be
designed for. There was some question about a 35 mph mini-
, mum in the lower part of the canyon. Fred LaBar said that a
40 mph minimum speed had been considered before in that sec­tion
and had been found to be acceptable. Jim Naegle asked
if the modified standard section had been used in the previ­ous
study. Some thought that it had but none were certain.
Duncan Silver suggested that copies of the 1979 proposal and
analysis be distributed to members of the ID team so that
the team had an opportunity to review the past work and de­cide
whether the past study was still valid. This approach
would be better than just rubber stamping a study that most
on the team were not familiar with.
It was also suggested that the AASHTO recommended minimums
be included in the table on page 3 of the memo. Rudy Lukes
asked where there would be minimum speeds greater than 40 mgh.
Stan Nuffer said that in some areas the posted speed is cur­rently
55 mph and that he thought we could maintain that
speed in those areas.
2
There was also some discussion on what "minimum" meant.
Some expressed concern that the minimum set now would be
absolute regardless of other consequences. Stan explained
that in order to establish roadway features (curves, etc.)
minimum speeds needed to be set. If the impacts of design­ing
a roadway for one "minimum" are unacceptable then a new
"minimum" speed would be required. Minimum speeds are not
meant to be fixed at the beginning of the study and then not
redefined if needed.
The technical memo illustrated standard sections and modified
standard sections for 40 mph. It was suggested that sections
for 35 and 55 mph also be included.
Steve Flint expressed concern that delineators would make
parking areas unuseable. Duncan Silver said that the need
for parking should be evaluated and planned for where
needed.
Rudy Lukes wondered if the dugway was really a good place to
consider a climbing lane. Duncan Silver said that there
should be an inventory of the needs for climbing lanes
before looking at possible locations. To conduct the
inventory the team should:
1. Establish criteria for the selection of possible
locations.
2. Identify those sections which may meet the
criteria.
3. Identify the possible environmental constraints at
those sites.
Slow vehicle turnouts were also discussed. Lynn Zollinger
indicated that the turnouts need to be placed where those
using the turnouts will have a good view of the roadway
in order to safely get out of and back into the traffic.
The final item on the goals and objectives memo was a sug­gestion
to add a section on the need for recreational parking.
Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service could help identify
where recreational parking was needed.
Item 4 - Alternate Alignments from the Summit to Garden City
Stan Nuffer said that the Archeologist was preparing an
alternate alignments survey.
3
Item 5 - Preview of Garden City Public Meeting Presentation
Cliff Forsgren previewed the slide presentation which was to
be used to introduce the project to those who attended the
meeting in Garden City.
SLC-STN/03
4